- From: Hadley Beeman <hadley@linkedgov.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:38:08 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, Public DWBP WG <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKK2BTtiAMGq7VC0cLXk7dS+gXsD7mWnzuqRjXBoSbphVehBog@mail.gmail.com>
Lovely summary. Thanks Phil!
-H
Le Fri, 25 Nov 2016 à 15:40, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> a écrit :
> The minutes of today's auspicious meeting are at
> https://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes with a snapshot below.
>
> We have resolved to publish new versions of both vocabularies and seek
> transition to PR for the BP doc, having collected substantial evidence
> of implementation and relevant documentation. Eric is checking his
> resolution to 2 final issues and, assuming that goes to plan, the DUV is
> complete. If further work is necessary, we'll hold a call just on that
> topic.
>
> Everyone expressed heartfelt thanks to everyone concerned, especially
> the editors, for putting in so much work.
>
>
> Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference
>
> 25 Nov 2016
>
> [2]Agenda
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon20161125
>
> See also: [3]IRC log
>
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-irc
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> ericstephan, hadleybeeman, riccardoAlbertoni, PhilA,
> newton, Caroline_, BernadetteLoscio, annette_g, Makx,
> deirdrelee
>
> Regrets
> Laufer
>
> Chair
> Hadley
>
> Scribe
> PhilA
>
> Contents
>
> * [4]Topics
> 1. [5]Precious call minutes
> 2. [6]BP Transition
> 3. [7]Data Quality vocabulary
> 4. [8]Dataset usage Vocabulary
> * [9]Summary of Action Items
> * [10]Summary of Resolutions
> __________________________________________________________
>
> <scribe> scribe: PhilA
>
> <scribe> scribeNick: phila
>
> <hadleybeeman> Phila is a bit early :)
>
> [Discussion of the wish list]
> [11]https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
>
> [11] https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Wish_List
>
> Precious call minutes
>
> <hadleybeeman> s/precious/previous
>
> -> [12]https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-dwbp-minutes Minutes from
> 11/11/16
>
> [12] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-dwbp-minutes
>
> NOTUC on previous minutes?
>
> RESOLUTION: Accept previous meeting minutes
>
> BP Transition
>
> BernadetteLoscio: I think we're ready and I think Carol and
> Newton agree
>
> <BernadetteLoscio>
> [13]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>
> [13] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>
> ->
> [14]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
> Implementation report
>
> [14] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>
> BernadetteLoscio: We tried to explain the methodology and the
> kinds of evidence that we collected
> ... In 2.1 we show the relation between BP and evidence
> ... considering datasets, guidelines and docs
> ... for some BPs it's easy to show, Others are more difficult
> ... BP28 is the most difficult on ewhich is about assessing
> datasets coverage as it's hard to find real implementation for
> this as it's very specific.
> ... But it is relevant and we showed that it is possible to do
> and we have agreement that it's important
> ... We have the lost of evidence, a link for each one
> ... That section 2.2 - 2.4
> ... Also have guidelines from Share-PSI etc.
> ... Included a section with some graphics to show which BPs
> have more evidence. Also tried to show that we have...
> ... First graph shows all evidence, 2nd for datasets and
> portals, 3rd for..
> ... Also made a cross ref between BPs and challenges
> ... After the graphics we tried to analyse the evidence that we
> collected. We want to show that preservation is not difficult
> to implement, just hard to find evidence of implementation.
> ... This section needs to be finished.
> ... We evaluated data catalogue solutions - CKAN and Socrata -
> you can see...
>
> <BernadetteLoscio>
> [15]https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/18Gz0n
> 9HOmeSPjo6qChhXdtPeOBf9kl1mFlA-KkqxP24/edit?usp=sharing
>
> [15]
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/cin.ufpe.br/spreadsheets/d/18Gz0n9HOmeSPjo6qChhXdtPeOBf9kl1mFlA-KkqxP24/edit?usp=sharing
>
> BernadetteLoscio: Plan is to convert the Google doc into an
> HTML table
> ... We wanted to show that CKAN and Socrata supports BPs even
> if a specific publishers doesn't follow them.
> ... We wanted to end with a summary of how to implement each BP
> and proof that we've done it.
> ... We're working on this implementation to show a step by step
> guide of how we implemented each BP.
> ... We can therefore show that each BP is implementable
>
> newton: We are making subtle changes like swapping Google Docs
> for HTML but that's cosmetic
>
> hadleybeeman: Thank you. This is a huge amount of work. The
> most thorough I've seen.
> ... The table at section 2.1 is what the Director will focus
> on.
> ... There may be questions like why does BP28 only have 3 when
> others have more - but you can answer that verbally.
> ... The last thing you said - about BPs being implementable -
> by showing that others have done it, we've already proved that.
>
> BernadetteLoscio: It's because I'm worried about BP28 where we
> only have 1 evidence from a dataset and 2 from documents/blogs
> ... it's a site
> ... This implementation was made by someone else (not us)
> ... So we thought that it would be nice to show that someone
> else has done everything.
>
> hadleybeeman: I think that's a user. Someone has used it -
> good. But you've already proved that it's implementable.
>
> BernadetteLoscio: Can we stillwork on the implementation report
> up until the Director meeting?
>
> <annette_g> Does anyone else see "The DocumentView interface is
> not supported
>
> <annette_g> Non-W3C methods of obtaining "window" also failed"
> when they open the editor's draft?
>
> BernadetteLoscio: We can probably add more evidence. I;ve
> written to Christophe, for example
>
> hadleybeeman: The IR can be edited up until the Director's
> call, it's not a formal document.
> ... That said, we need to vote on the BPs based on what we have
> at the time of the vote
> ... I would also recommend... assuming we go ahead, as you
> prepare for the Director's call, be ready for questions you can
> predict you're going to get.
> ... You can put info in the doc if you want to but it may not
> be read.
>
> BernadetteLoscio: It's not a Note, but we can still make it
> available, no?
>
> phila: Yes, I'll put it in /2016/11/{blah}
>
> <newton> +1 phil :-)
>
> BernadetteLoscio: Do you think its worth including the data
> catalogues evaluation?
> ... IU think it shows that they're available in the solutions
> that are widely used. They're not currently in the evidence
> table.
> ... It's another level
>
> hadleybeeman: Phil said it can be on the Web, so it's out
> there. You can do what you like with it.
> ... If you want to add, close off etc. you can
>
> BernadetteLoscio: But for Director's call, it's the table in
> section 2.1 that's most important
>
> hadleybeeman: Yep, and 2.2 explains 2.1
> ... It's a very good doc and very thorough
>
> <Zakim> antoine, you wanted to discuss nitpicking
>
> antoine: It's a very good doc.
> ... Just one comment - on the graphics in section 3
> ... I'm not sure why the no. evidences is in a differnet
> diagram
> ... It's because not all docs have references
> ... It looks a bit different from the other one which makes it
> look as if there's a difference in the methodology.
> ... It looks as if you're trying to hid something when in fact
> you're trying to explain.
>
> BernadetteLoscio: Is it a problem that we don't havea docs and
> ref for each BP?
>
> antoine: No, as long as there's another kind of evidence
>
> BernadetteLoscio: This type of evidence is a kind of support.
> ... Our main concern was to have datasets and data portals for
> each BP
>
> antoine: I'm already convinced.
> ... On the number of evidence per challenge
> ... I'm concerned that this diagram over emphasises the smaller
> level of evidence for BP28
> ... It highlights data preservation prob even more
>
> BernadetteLoscio: I agree. I had similar thoughts when I saw
> it.
>
> antoine: In 2.3 there's a really weird link for ???
>
> <hadleybeeman> q/
>
> [Discussion - the hash bang URL is fine]
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: This document... we can put it on the
> web. It is linked from the PR and the actual recommendation. It
> is part of the documentation.
>
> <Makx> q
>
> hadleybeeman: have all comments received been addressed? Is
> there a disposition of comments?
>
> BernadetteLoscio: We received some comments but they were not
> to change the content
> ... We had a message from Christophe but he was thinking that
> we were still in the previous phase, but he made some commetns
> adn suggestions for fixing some minor mistakes
>
> hadleybeeman: And do we have a message from the commenters that
> they're happy with our response.
>
> BernadetteLoscio: They were about fixing a word or two
> ... I answered saying that we're going to fix it, it's not
> about making a proposal.
>
> annette_g: I wanted to point out the restrictions on the Google
> doc prevent us getting in
>
> <Caroline_>
> [16]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>
> [16] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-implementation-report.html
>
> annette_g: Can it be linked from the regular WG homepage so we
> can get to it.
> ... There's a link to the IR but it goes to the Google doc
> ... Oh, no, it goes somewhere else
>
> hadleybeeman: So we need a message from Christophe confirming
> that he's happy
>
> BernadetteLoscio: I'll collect the messages
> ... I'll do it the same way as last time on a wiki page
>
> <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk about Wendy Carrera
> [17]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2
> 016Nov/0001.html
>
> [17]
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dwbp-comments/2016Nov/0001.html
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: Wendy's comments are more than editorial.
> She runs the European Data Portal.
>
> On Wendy's mail, yes, we can point to
> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata about
> locale-neutral data. We could talk about her comment on
> multilingualism. I don't think that we can add in a line about
> multilingual labels in data at this stage but I'm not sure this
> is where that belongs anyway - I'd say that's in vocabulary
> development. I'd be happy to amend this sentence in BP 15:
>
> [18] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#LocaleParametersMetadata
>
> " In the context of the Web, using unambiguous, Web-based
> identifiers (URIs) for standardized vocabulary resources is an
> efficient way to do this."
>
> to say
>
> " In the context of the Web, using unambiguous, Web-based
> identifiers (URIs) for standardized vocabulary resources is an
> efficient way to do this, noting that the same URI may have
> multilingaul labels attached for greater cross-border
> interoperability."
>
> (Or some such small addition in that general area of the doc).
>
> On DCAT-AP, I thought we'd mentioned it somewhere but a quick
> search shows me to be mistaken. We could perhaps amend BP 1 so
> that the current:
>
> <hadleybeeman> Phila: She made a couple of comments on her
> email. I have a few suggestions on how to reply. But we do need
> her to then say, "that helps"
>
> "when defining machine-readable metadata, reusing existing
> standard terms and popular vocabularies are strongly
> recommended. For example, Dublin Core Metadata (DCMI) terms
> DCTERMS] and Data Catalog Vocabulary [VOCAB-DCAT] can be used
> to provide descriptive metadata."
>
> becomes
>
> "when defining machine-readable metadata, reusing existing
> standard terms and popular vocabularies are strongly
> recommended. For example, Dublin Core Metadata (DCMI) terms
> DCTERMS] and Data Catalog Vocabulary [VOCAB-DCAT] can be used
> to provide descriptive metadata. Such vocabularies are designed
> to be very flexible so it is often helpful to use a specific
> /profile/ of a vocabulary such as the European Commission's
> DCAT-AP (link)."
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...Her second comment was to comment DCAT-AP.
> Which we haven't yet.
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...I think that's as far as we can go to address
> those at this point.
>
> <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: I thought her comment meant
> changes to the implementation report
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: I think we can get away with these minor
> changes to the BP doc.
>
> <hadleybeeman> BernadetteLoscio: So you can help us to answer
> her message?
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: I'll make those changes to the doc and
> confirm them with Wendy
>
> <scribe> ACTION: phila to act on Wendy Carrera's comments
> suggested and write to her [recorded in
> [19]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>
> [19] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-303 - Act on wendy carrera's comments
> suggested and write to her [on Phil Archer - due 2016-12-02].
>
> BernadetteLoscio: I'll take another look at the mailing list.
>
> <Caroline_> [20]https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/473
>
> [20] https://github.com/w3c/dwbp/pull/473
>
> newton: We had pull requests from Andrew Kirkpatrick, from
> Adobe that changed a link. Do we include that as a comment
>
> hadleybeeman: I'd point to that and say that we accepted their
> proposal
>
> Makx: Just one comment on section 4 of the implementation
> report. You're making statements about a product that might not
> be in line with their view. If you publish without asking them,
> you might get into trouble.
> ... You're matching a BP against a product - the vendor might
> object to that.
>
> BernadetteLoscio: I see that. We've finished this evaluation
> yesterday. We're going to contact the vendors and see if they
> agree with this.
> ... If not, we won't include it.
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> just delete the column about fail
>
> hadleybeeman: A suggestion - we need to show evidence - not all
> evidence will be relevant.
>
> <ericstephan> +1 hadleybeeman
>
> <Makx> +1 to hadley
>
> hadleybeeman: You could remove the fail column
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>
> <Caroline_> +1 :)
>
> hadleybeeman: Just keep provides evidence, provides partial
> evidence instead of "pass" and "partial pass"
> ... That's less confrontational
>
> BernadetteLoscio: Instead of pass/fail, we can just say which
> solutions implement which BPs
> ... Like in 2.2
>
> <Makx> that's OK
>
> hadleybeeman: That would work too.
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> \me the same here
>
> annette_g: One little thing that I think we can take care of.
> The editor's draft in Safari I get javascript errors. But it
> works in Chrome and FF
>
> phila: I believe that problem will disappear in the published
> version in which ReSpec disappears
>
> <newton> @annette_g, would you mind chatting a little on skype
> to show me those errors?
>
> PROPOSED: Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that
> will lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
>
> <annette_g> what if commenters aren't happy with our changes?
>
> <annette_g> :)
>
> +1
>
> <ericstephan> +1
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>
> <newton> +1
>
> <hadleybeeman> +1
>
> <annette_g> +1
>
> <deirdrelee> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that
> will lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
>
> <Makx> +1
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>
> <Caroline_> +1
>
> <annette_g> but Wendy may be trying to get us to add a BP about
> multilingual publishing
>
> <hadleybeeman> @annette_g, in which case we'd have to back and
> do CR again.
>
> PROPOSED: That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
> Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
> Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
> implementation that has been gathered
>
> <hadleybeeman> +1
>
> <annette_g> +1
>
> <ericstephan> +1 in the season of hope
>
> <Caroline_> +1
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>
> <newton> +1
>
> <Makx> +1
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>
> <antoine> +1
>
> <deirdrelee> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
> Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
> Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
> implementation that has been gathered
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> uhhuhuhuuhuhuhuhuhu
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> congrats!!!!
>
> <ericstephan> woot woot
>
> <newton> :-) :-)
>
> <annette_g> PROPOSED: A vote of thanks to editors for putting
> together a fantastic implementation report!
>
> <hadleybeeman> +1
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>
> <annette_g> +1
>
> +1
>
> <ericstephan> +1
>
> <Makx> +1
>
> <deirdrelee> +1 :)
>
> <antoine> +1 :-)
>
> <newton> thanks! :-)
>
> RESOLUTION: A vote of thanks to editors for putting together a
> fantastic implementation report!
>
> Data Quality vocabulary
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> thanks a lot everybody!
>
> <Caroline_> Thank you! Great job all members of the WG :))))))
>
> hadleybeeman: DQV editors, would you like to publish a new
> verrsion of DQV?
>
> antoine: Yes
> ... All we changed was a couple of mappings in mapping to the
> ISO quality dimensions
>
> riccardoAlbertoni: And we changed data usage to dataset usage
>
> hadleybeeman: Are there any other changes?
> ... Are there any other comments?
>
> riccardoAlbertoni: We collected some new implementations in the
> wiki
>
> antoine: There are some old comments for which we didn't
> receive precise feedback to your replies, but we're thinking of
> adding to the WG's wishlist
>
> hadleybeeman: So you're saying that even though you don't have
> confirmation from the commenters, after allowing good time, you
> want to go ahead
>
> PROPOSED: That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
> Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
>
> <hadleybeeman> +1
>
> <deirdrelee> +1
>
> <Makx> +1
>
> <annette_g> +1
>
> <antoine> +1
>
> <newton> +1
>
> <riccardoAlbertoni> +1
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>
> <ericstephan> +1
>
> <Caroline_> +1
>
> RESOLUTION: That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
> Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
>
> Dataset usage Vocabulary
>
> <annette_g> yay!
>
> ericstephan: I'd like to mention the ongoing discussion with
> Andrea P
> ... Andrea has been excellent at providing feedback on the DUV
> ... He pointed out an inconsistency in data usage and dataset
> usage
> ... He was asking about the relationship with DQV
> ... I was thinking these might be good topics for a summary
> document that we could publish cf. putting in the doc.
> ... Andrea has also pointed out some errors in usage of
> dct:identifier
> ... So I'd like permission to check with the SPARK ontology
> editors
> ... We have a stable version of the doc, it's been stable since
> August. What I'd like is permission to publish with the
> examples fixed.
>
> hadleybeeman: Typos, yes. What's the discussion with SPARK
> ontology editors. How different could that make the doc?
>
> ericstephan: Our team has been working with SPARK for a while.
> ... It's just making sure that we use the correct property in
> the way that SPARK would like to use it
> ... If it's not something that we can verify, I'd just take the
> property out of the example.
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: is this dcterms:identifier?
>
> <hadleybeeman> eric: no
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: In the resolution, we can note tis is an
> ongoing discussion. Subject to simple resolution of the issue
> with vero:isReferencedby, and the one on dcterms:identifier,
> the group is happy.
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...If that isn't simply resolved, we could
> reconvene just before the end of Dec.
>
> Makx: I read Andrea's comment, I think biro is an indirection
> (pointing to a record)
>
> ericstephan: That's what I think we're doing
> ... I just want to double check
> ... Worst case, we go back and use dct:isReferencedBy but I
> don't think that's correct
>
> hadleybeeman: We could resolve to publish now and come back if
> we have to
>
> phila: True
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: Eric, if you make a snapshot copy before
> you make any changes, I'll use that one.
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...But you're hoping not to make changes, right?
>
> <hadleybeeman> ericstephan: Right
>
> <Makx> Eric, I think you do use biro:isReferencedBy
> incorrectly; your object is a fabio:InstructionalWork not a
> bibliographic record
>
> hadleybeeman: We could vote on what there is, and come back for
> another meeting is we have to
>
> ericstephan: Makx also provided some guidance in IRC
> ... If it blows up, we'd just remove anything that seems to be
> controversial, that's how I'd contain it
>
> hadleybeeman: Are you talking about removing a term, that's
> substantial.
>
> ericstephan: I want to do the right thing but I also want to
> respect the timing
>
> Makx: Just to say to Eric, it's not a question of changing the
> vocab, it's just changing the example
> ... I was looking at the diagram - that is correct. The example
> is in conflict with the diagram
> ... The diagram references a biro prop, in the example, you
> make a reference to a ?? work
> ... The consequence is for the example
>
> ericstephan: That gives me hope.
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>
> PROPOSED: To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
> Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
>
> <Caroline_> +1
>
> <hadleybeeman> +1
>
> <ericstephan> +1
>
> hadleybeeman: Please, ericstephan, get back to us by Wednesday
> (Europe) if you need a meting next Friday.
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> +1
>
> <annette_g> +1
>
> <Makx> +1
>
> phila: Either way, we're only going to publish one new version,
> not two.
>
> <ericstephan> [21]https://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/duv
>
> [21] https://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/vocabs/duv
>
> RESOLUTION: To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
> Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
>
> <hadleybeeman> yeay!!!
>
> ericstephan: LOV did publish our vocab but since we didn't
> publish the other vocabs, it looks tiny. Can we improve that
>
> <Zakim> newton, you wanted to discuss the last and very quick
> question - can we add more evidence for Data Preservation BPs?
>
> <Zakim> phila, you wanted to talk LOV
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: sure
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: I see what ericstephan means. The number
> of terms DUV defines is small.
>
> -> [22]https://www.w3.org/ns/duv Namespace
>
> [22] https://www.w3.org/ns/duv
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...Therefore, your namespace file — that's what
> they look at.
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...They don't look at the TR space document.
>
> <hadleybeeman> ...There's got to be a way to do something bout
> that.
>
> <hadleybeeman> ericstephan: I can go back to them and see what
> we might do. I'll copy phila
>
> <hadleybeeman> phila: I can easily ad to the NS document at any
> time. IT's not locked down.
>
> antoine: I suspect that we might be able to use a specific
> field in the metadata to force the links to be recognised
>
> <ericstephan> yes will do!
>
> hadleybeeman: The queue is empty...
> ... Eric, you mentioned...
> ... Topics for a summary document
> ... You can write a doc like an implementation report, i.e. not
> a formal doc
>
> ericstephan: Its just a web page about the relationships or
> background info
> ... You can put it in the wiki etc.
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> I can help you Eric ;)
>
> hadleybeeman: The wiki is frozen when the WG closes
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> ok ;) thanks!
>
> hadleybeeman: We're 30 mins over...
> ... Thank you to editors, contributors, participants
>
> <BernadetteLoscio> sure!!!
>
> hadleybeeman: We'll work on other stuff coming up
>
> <ericstephan> Take care and thank you all for everything!
>
> <deirdrelee> yay! Great work
>
> <Makx> OK bye bye!
>
> Caroline_: Thank you the chairs, Obrigado
>
> <Makx> Hope to see some of you next week
>
> <deirdrelee> see some of you next week!
>
> <annette_g> bye folks!
>
> <deirdrelee> Thanks for chairing hadleybeeman
>
> <hadleybeeman> bye all :)
>
> <hadleybeeman> thanks for co-chairing, deirdrelee and yaso!
>
> <hadleybeeman> :)
>
> <Makx> Bye
>
> <newton> bye and thank you all!
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> [NEW] ACTION: phila to act on Wendy Carrera's comments
> suggested and write to her [recorded in
> [23]http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01]
>
> [23] http://www.w3.org/2016/11/25-dwbp-minutes.html#action01
>
> Summary of Resolutions
>
> 1. [24]Accept previous meeting minutes
> 2. [25]Accept comments from Christophe G and Wendy C that will
> lead to very minor tweaks to the BP doc
> 3. [26]That subject to positive replies from Wendy C and
> Christophe G, the WG will seek transition of the BP doc to
> Proposed Recommendation, noting the extensive evidence of
> implementation that has been gathered
> 4. [27]A vote of thanks to editors for putting together a
> fantastic implementation report!
> 5. [28]That the current Editor's Draft of the Data Quality
> Vocabulary be published as an updated Note
> 6. [29]To publish the editor's draft of the Dataset Usage
> Vocabulary, pending the fixing of typos
>
> [End of minutes]
> __________________________________________________________
>
>
Received on Friday, 25 November 2016 19:38:55 UTC